Here's the deal, oh, sweet, stupid gun nuts: Have a history lesson. Gun control laws had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the Holocaust. In fact, they were initially part of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, punishing Germany by eliminating private ownership of guns. In the Weimar Republic, new laws liberalized gun ownership, allowing hunting rifles and more. The other gun control laws in Germany post-WWI were specifically put in to prevent armed takeover of the government by groups like the Nazi Party, which did not, in fact, stage a coup, but used electoral power to solidify its hold on the government (along with the Gestapo and the repression of demonized Communist groups). In fact, Hitler and the Third Reich opened up gun ownership even more, even if they did ban all Jews from owning guns. Yeah, the 1938 law said "a hunting license entitles the holder to carry firearms and handguns." That was new. It also lowered the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and changed one-year permits to three-year.

Oh, by the way, the law also took away any "stabbing weapons" from Jews. And if the Jews had been more strongly armed and attacked the government, all that would have happened is that even more people would have turned on them because the propaganda that said that evil Jews wanted to enslave the country would have appeared to be proven true. No, the Holocaust wouldn't have been worse. But it would still have happened. (This leaves out the enormous amount of armed Jewish resistance against the Nazis.)

The Rude Pundit understands that there's a lot of people out there who like to fellate their guns and call it love. He understands that there's so many who are jonesing for that first rampaging black man to come bursting in during a race riot so they can finally find out what really happens when Bushmaster fire hits human flesh. He understands that there's a whole lot of people invested in chasing the phantoms of resistance, as if they could actually survive if the government turns on us.

If you think you need to be armed with assault weapons because you might have to fight a government that wants to take your assault weapons away through laws passed by a legally-elected body, you are a traitor and kind of a dick. And if that's the best you've got for your argument on why you need to have military style weapons, then you, dear, dumb friend, are believing a whole heaping shovelful of lies.

Come, fantasize for a moment about something other than Jesus with a strap-on shaped like a Ruger reaming your asshole. Fantasize that many non-Jewish Germans opposed Hitler and wanted to rise up against him. You know what would have happened? The enormous Nazi army would have massacred them. The Third Reich existed because the German people wanted it to exist. Give it up.

Fantasize now that the American government wants you dead. Fantasize about the sound of that drone carrying missiles. It's a nearly silent whoosh. You hear it? You think your semi-automatic whatever could stop it? Now imagine being turned into blood vapor.

Really, though, it's never gonna happen. And neither is the race war. And chances are pretty damn good that you're never gonna get to point a gun at anyone other than a family member or yourself.

But, if nothing else, give up the Nazi analogy. Considering all the Nazi shit that shows up at gun shows in an approving way, you just look like hypocritical yahoos attempting to be smart, and that's just fuckin' pathetic.

56. Gun owners = nazis!!!

99. Actually there are many responsible gun owners.

What is the big problem with background checks and eliminating large capacity magazines. Most gun owners have no problem with these sensible ideas for regulation. The NRA is out of step with its own members.

14. The most effective weapon in 20th century insurgencies was NOT the firearm, but the mine,

the bomb, the secreted explosive. At best, the makeshift rocket.

Moreover, while there's a good case to be made that the behind-the-lines partisans substantively affected the German war effort in the East, but this was only because

1) The initial pushes of Barbarossa and subsequent campaigns depended on strategies of rapid advance and encirclement, leaving vast pockets of actual (military) units in the rear areas to be dealt with "later" and

2) the Wehrmacht actually had to deal with a massive mechanized military force to their front.

Where partisan groups were not comprised primarily of stranded military and the front pressure was less severe (for instance, in Poland), German units - sometimes even so-called police battalions rather than front line combat units - destroyed all rear area "resistance" with relative ease, whether the inhabitants of the area were armed or not. People who invoke the asinine claim about the difference armed resistance would have made against the Wehrmacht are, quite simply, ignorant.

79. Actually your history is a little off.

In 1939, all resistance in Poland came to an end, just like it did in Iraq after US forces took Baghdad. At that point the Poles accepted the fact they had lost and waited to see what would happen in the West.

Hitler moved his forces to the West during the winter of 1939-1940 and hit France in May 1940, by June the war in the West was over. Britain would hold on, claim a Victory in the Battle of Britain and then, like the Poles and the French waited for something to happen.

Hitler moved against the Balkans in the Spring of 1941, this moved seems to have convinced Stalin that Hitler had no plans to attack Russia in 1941, instead Hitler would wait for the Spring of 1942. There is some indications that Stalin was planning to attack first, the Red Army was posed to attack in June 1941, not defend.

Side note: It was due to this position that the Germans ended up taking as much as Russia as they did, An Army on the Offensive wants its supplies at the start of the Offensive as close to the front lines as possible, on the other hand, on the Defensive an Army wants the supplies further back so they can fall back to it. Thus it is in many ways advantageous to attack an army about to launch an attack itself. You surround it and take its supplies for yourself, the Army you are attacking thus has no fuel, no food and no ammo and can be left behind and taken prisoner later. On the other hand, if the Army is geared for the Defensive, the attacking army just pushes the Army back onto its supplies, strengthening the Defensive army while the Offensive army uses up its food, Fuel and Ammo (Kursk in 1943 was an example of a German Offensive facing a Russian Army on the Defensive, and ended up with the German's offensive being stopped and the Germans driver out of the Eastern Ukraine by the Red Army as the Red Army counter attacked). The Russian Army in June 1941 had its supplies to close for a defensive stand, and out flanked by the Germans to go on the Offensive and thus the terrible losses of the Russians in 1941.

Anyway, in 1941 the German Army moved against Stalin. At that point the situation in Poland and France changed. Germany no longer had the ability to control both countries and thus, especially in Poland, retreated to the main cities and the rail lines. The Rural Areas fell under the real control of the Poles. Now the Germans could still get food out of Poland, but paying for it instead of stealing it (and this is noted in reports to the Vatican, the situation in Poland improved with the attack on Russia). This permitted more and more actions by the parts of the Poles against the Germans. This included quite large number of troops, under armed but large. None that could attack and hold any urban areas, but large enough to keep all but the largest Germans forces along the lines of Supplies to the Army in Russia.

When the German Army failed to take Moscow, the situation in Russia deteriorated for the Germans. They main source of fuel had been cut off in June 1941, when they attacked it (i.e. Russia, which had been supplying something like 90% of the Fuel the Germans were using in 1941). Thus the German Army could no longer do a massive attack like it did in 1941. The German Army could still go on the Offensive, but only on one front (instead of the three attacks on Russia in 1941) and then it was more to secure a source of fuel then anything else (and it this it failed).

This further reduced the ability of the Germans to control the countryside of the lands behind their lines. It is into this inability that the Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc all started to participate in guerrilla activities against the Germans (again much like Iraq AFTER Bush had declared the war over). The Germans in response tried to get local minorities to support they side against the people in armed revolt. For example Kosovo ended up supporting the Germans against the Serbs. The Croats were recruited against the Serbs and the Communists. Ukrainians were recruited to fight the Russians (and used against the Poles, but as to that the Ukrainians protested and were withdrawn).

In France, a similar situation developed, small groups fighting the Germans, tying up German resources (Through the most extensive Guerrilla activity was in Northern Italy after Italy had surrendered and the Allies moved up the Italian Peninsula, and like the situation in Serbia and France Communist dominated).

All of the above forces needed weapons, and did they best to make them, obtain them from the Germans or the Allies and to use them to tie up German forces. This is much like the situation in Iraq after the US took Baghdad, Guerrillas groups organized on a local level, using whatever arms they had, and commenced operations against the occupying power. Thus the real guerrillas war in Poland was from 1943 (some give 1942) to 1945 not from 1939. At the same time, weapons were needed and the Guerrilla did all they could to obtain them (including making some in Warsaw under the German's control). Unlike the Iraqis who had access to arms from Iran and Saudi Arabia, Poland was surrounded by German occupied or allied countries and thus had a hard time obtaining weapons.

Mao Tse Tung was doing the same in China, against both the Japanese and the Nationalist Government. The Key was organization first, then weapons. Even the Germans knew this, thus they desire to keep as many officers and NCOs in POW camps as possible. Notice it also required that most of the German Army be busy someplace else, thus permitting the maximum use of the little resources the Poles had on hand (and a plan to hold onto as much as possible to free Warsaw from German Hands as the Red Army neared Poland, this lead to the Polish 1944 revolt, that was put down by the Germans, as Stalin left the Red Army sit outside Warsaw till the Rebellion was crushed).

After the Germans were driven out of Poland, the Russians took over. Earlier Stalin had made some contact with the Polish Government in Exile but those contacts had broken off by 1944. Stalin thus looked to a Pole to rule Poland and proceeded to give the max support to the communist party in Poland.

People tend to forget, Stalin did NOT impose Communist rule on Poland and the rest of Europe that feel to him, he was smarter to do something like that. Instead Stalin permitted the locals to form a local government, but made sure the Communists were included and made sure the Communists members of the Government had access to resources, including money, food, material to rebuild etc (In fact Stalin opposed the Marshall Plan for it would undermine his control of the Rebuilding of Eastern Europe, and the reason the US did the Marshall Plan was to do to the areas under American Control what Stalin was doing to the area under Stalin's control, making sure the locals saw where the benefits they were getting was coming from, and thus NOT to revolt against the group that was suppling them with what they needed.

The Poles seem to accept Stalin's decision as to who should rule them, he made Poles in charge, he refused to do the Collectivization he had done in the Soviet Union and he removed many of the Germans speakers living in the new borders of Poland that he drew. Yes, Poland would have preferred to be free, but Stalin was not going to permit that, but he was going to make sure the people of Poland had little to complain about when it came to their position in Poland.

Back to the Germans. The Key was organization, which the Poles actually maintain during the German occupation and the later Soviet Domination. A guerrilla war was done only after 1941 for it could bring positive results only after 1941. Italy did the same, after 1943 and France, to a much more limited degree after Vichy France was taken over in the Spring of 1942.

The reason for the Guerrilla activities only starting after 1941, was prior to that date it would have been a waste of time, men and weapons. The German Army was supreme in Europe and NOT tied down with any other active conflict. Yes, Britain was still as war with German, and bombing Germany, but unable to invade Continental Europe without some help, and that meant US AND SOVIET help. When you look at American and the Soviet Union, Britain needed more the Soviet Union for it was ON the Continent, the Americas were restricted by transport (i.e. getting across the ocean) to provide the men needed to tie up to many German forces.

After 1941, both the Soviet Union and the US were at war with Hitler, with Hitler's failure to take Moscow in 1941, it was only a matter of time for the Soviet Union to get its act together and attack a fuel starved German Army. Thus Guerrilla activity promised to speed up the defeat of Germany (or maybe better treatment by the Germans as they try to secure their supply lines and fight off the Russians).

AS to weapons, this mean the use of them prior to 1941 would have been a waste, on the other hand after 1941 the Poles (and others) were telling the Germans they had to be dealt with. The Sunni Moslems in Iraq did the same with the American occupation, the Guerrilla attacks forced the American to deal with them, and the Americans did, they were paid off in exchange for peace. The Shiites had been paid off earlier with control of the Government (just like Stalin did in Poland and the rest of the countries he occupied in 1944 and 1945).

Remember Guerrilla war is only effective if you can maintain some areas of independence, maybe not all of the time, but huge areas. In 1939 the Poles could NOT do that, given their own disorganization due to they defeat AND the greater access to fuel, food, ammo and vehicles the Germans had. By 1941, the Poles had established an internal organization (The Home Army) and were getting they hands on some weapons AND the Germans had invaded Russia which reduced the number of troops the Germans could use against the Poles, but also Fuel and Ammo. Thus attacks occurred, for the Poles could control some areas for some time period so they could form up to launch such an attack AND retreat to with any Civilians who were worried about retaliation by the Germans. Thus the ability to control some land independent of the Germans permitted the Poles the ability to affect the maximum harm, and suffer the minimum damage. The same with the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, until both were bought off, they did the same. The US had to pay them off OR send it more troops, troops the US could NOT obtain without the Draft (and that would have been the kiss of death to the War in Iraq to what support the war had in the US). Thus the US paid off the Shiites and then the Sunnis and then pulled out.

85. I appreciate the time you devoted to this, and the detail you added

None of it disputes what I sketched out in broad strokes, however. Polish resistance could indeed begin effectively only when the main Wehrmacht force had to contend with conventional forces to their front. Even so, they were not particularly effective even as a guerrilla force until that front was endangered and, later, collapsing.

I would dispute that the Germans "retreated" to the urban areas in Poland. They certainly located themselves in the urban areas, but they also aggressively addressed partisan activity in the countryside (of the home army or otherwise), and were far more successful at dealing with it than they were at dealing with other partisans to the east. We tend to think of the Holocaust in Poland, for example, as largely an urban affair, but it was also, of course, a matter of clearing small towns and villages in the countryside, and even what the Germans would call the war in the woods. The majority of these actions happened in 1942 and 1943 - and would hardly have been possible at the scale and extent that they were conducted had there been an effective resistance in the countryside. German police battalions - hardly frontline combat troops! - roamed the countrysides and forests of Poland with virtual impunity, and near zero casualties. Again, at least until they had the full weight of the Red Army pushing them back westward (after Kursk).

151. You are missing how serious the fuel shortage was post 1941

A German Infantry DIVISION on its way to Stalingrad were only issued 10% of what had been standard issue pre-War. This was to save the fuel for the Armor and Air forces (The standard was three Infantry divisions to each Armour Division). Supplies came by coal fired steam trains. From the train-heads to the front trucks were used, in good weather, but to the actual units fighting it was all by horse drawn wagon. During the Freeze, Winter and Thaw, Horse draw wagons were preferred (horse drawn wagons did better in the subsequent mud during the Thaw and Freeze). Horses lasted three to six months on the front, at that point they had to to be withdrawn to recover, they would lose that much weight and either had to go back, or they just died, either way the unit needed new horses.

I bring this up, for in the movies the German troops are moving around in trucks and VW Kabelwagens, but rarely on horse or on foot. The US Army, during WWII, ended up using 2 1/2 ton trucks to move troops. The US kept them in Motor pools, but ended up one truck per infantry platoon, to haul the equipment of the platoon and its three squads. The Germans could NOT do this and thus retain the traditional one mule to squad (Mules was preferred but horses were used when Mules could NOT be obtained). The Platoon, Company and higher levels also used horses for hauling supplies. Through the Germans only maintain one horse mounted calvary Divisional unit unit during the war, and it was switched to vehicles late 1944. The reason for this was by 1942 the Germans were recruiting Russians and Ukrainians to fight on horse back for them, using them NOT only in Russia, but in Italy and Normandy.

Each German Infantry Division had ten infantry battalions, one of which used bicycles for greater maneuverability, these bicycle battalions were from after 1941, to replace truck units, the other nine battalions walked into combat.

I bring the above up for its shows how bad the fuel situation was for the German Army after 1941. The German army just did NOT have the fuel to move any unit QUICKLY outside the front lines. Fuel for Trucks were used in important operations (For example the Germans moving Croat Troops (Who technically were also fighting the Germans) when their leader agree to help the Germans against Tito's forces. Thus trucks and fuel was available, if high enough priority. For example the Death Camps used trucks during 1942, but then built a rail siding from the local rail head to the camp.

In a pinch troops can march 50 miles in a day on foot, but average about 10, if little or no opposition, less if serious opposition occurs. Thus Germany lost control effective control over any area behind their lines if it was more then 10 miles from a rail-line. Worse the need for horses on the front, and the resistance to sell to the Germans their horses by the Poles and French, horse mounted troops were NOT an option. Thus it was Infantry on foot or on bicycles.

Thus most of Poland more the 10 miles from a Rail line OR 20 miles from the actual front, were beyond German Control. This gave the Poles some safe locations to operate from (through not as much as the Serbs under Tito). The lost of Control in Rural France is under reported, but given the more extensive rail lines in France, less then in Eastern Europe(this is related to the rural Right wing and Communist infighting in France during WWII).

Weapons were needed, but so was organization. This is where France, Italy and Serbia had an advantage over Poland, all but Poland had a strong Communist Party before WWII, and it was the Communist Party that did most of the resistance during WWII. The Poles had a problem, to far from England and Stalin did not trust them. Thus no Weapons for the Poles. The Polish Home Army tried to organize the resistance, but then committed itself to freeing Warsaw.

In addition to weapons, a Resistance group MUST have a place to retreat to, to patch its wounds. This can move around if need be. The lost of Control over Rural areas of Poland, Serbia, Italy and France permitted such "safe areas" to exists. The Germans, after 1941, could close any area down, but not for long and then not more then one at a time. The US ran across a similar situation in Vietnam, we could close down one such safe area for the Viet Cong, then when US Forces left, the Viet Cong would return. Same thing in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Prior to 1941, the Germans had the fuel to destroy such safe havens, and keep out any returning resistance troops, but could NOT do that after 1941. Thus resistance was possible after 1941, but not before.

17. gun nuts make up their own facts - thanks for pointing this out

18. I attended a "gun show", I'd say 15 years ago

An old friend of mine had inherited some old antique gun and was apparently hoping to find ammunition for it. Being an old country boy, he called me to see if I wanted to go with him, since it was in the city where I lived (Indianapolis). So we got the address and went. Holy shit. It was full of nazi shit. Nazi flags, pictures of Hitler, swastikas everywhere. I can't say that this was typical of gun shows, cause that's the only one I've ever been too, but we were shocked.

Too fucking spot on.....these gun-crazed conspiracy nut jobs who along with people like Alex Jones and that CEO of the tactical weapons company that is freaking out, all thinking the US Government is not only out to get their guns, but to start a new world order, think that they can protect themselves by having these guns....what are they smoking? If the US govt wants them dead, a drone with missile could take them out before they even realized what was coming.

76. Sure, drones smacking into CONUS neighborhoods will go over real well with the general public...

89. You missed the point.

Being that if the government chose to come after us, there is little that we could do to stop them.
Armed resistance ends badly.
They will know when you are home, who you just got off the phone with, and what you talked about.
The point is, that an AR-15 is not going to protect you from the Feds. That is a nihilistic fantasy.

23. k+r!

24. Fail - "even if they did ban all Jews from owning guns"

Way to bury the bury the fact that proves the entire thread is more nonsense than "rude".

The 1938 law entirely removed the ability for Jews to own firearms and this was obviously because Hitler intended to kill them and wanted to make it harder for them to fight back. This is the substance of the "gun nuts" appeal to nazi history and it doesn't go away by saying "even if" or claiming "they would have died anyway".

The gun laws of 1938 had two purposes... to give more guns to the people that Hitler wanted to be armed for the coming conflict... and to remove them for the people he didn't want to be able to defend themselves. Both are excellent examples of why 2A was necessary.

Fantasize now that the American government wants you dead

Go ahead and "fantasize" about a future where a far RW government loosens existing gun control laws for white people and then removes them entirely from anyone with darker skin... just before a campaign of hatred that slaughters millions of such people.

Then imagine some idiot 75 years later trying to pretend that the law had nothing to do with those deaths and, in fact, was just the opposite because it "actually relaxed most gun laws".

28. How?

This seems to repeat the unsupported statement of the OP... but just repeating a claim that it "had nothing to do with" the deaths doesn't really add to the discussion, does it?

If it's true that they could own firearms ten years earlier and then it became illegal to own them... how could that "have nothing to do with" their slaughter such a short time later? Are we saying that not a single one lost a firearm that could later have been used to defend a family?

33. It is Not My Duty To Educate You, Sir

But here is an exceedingly brief synopsis of the situation.

In the last days of the Weimar Republic, all leading political parties fielded armed militias. Everyone knows of the Storm Troopers, though the Red Guard, the Steel Helmet (German Nationalists) and the Iron Guard (Socialist Workers, the largest party) have generally been forgotten. Election campaigns were marked by violent clashes among these bodies, with the explictly insurrectionist ones, the Nazis and the Communists, taking the leading role. While in some campaigns, these united against the Socialist Workers Party, their relations remained hostile and violent. While much stress is placed on elections having put the Nazis in power, the elections were conditioned by party violence, and the choosing of Hitler as Chancellor to form a government was in large a recognition of which party could wield the most effective violence in the streets.

Once Hitler had formed a government, and had police power to go with the power of the party militias (who were largely deputized as auxiliary policemen), the first thing done was the breaking of the Communist and Socialist parties, and their armed wings. This was accomplished in very short order. The Communists were crushed very quickly, and crushed despite the fact that they possessed weapons, and men practiced in their use organized into disciplined clandestine bodies. The Socialists were more or less allowed to surrender, which they mostly did. Both these parties had voting strength in the millions, and thousands of armed adherents: it availed them nothing.

The total of Jews in Germany at the time was about a half million, of all ages and conditions. Certainly less than half of that would have been healthy adults, and less than half of these would have been men of fighting age and trim. German Jews in the early years of Nazi rule were encouraged to leave, and by the great Krystalnacht pogrom more than half of them had done so ( as things developed, most had not fled far enough, but that is a separate matter ). This incident marked the first general violent action against Jews in Germany and Austria. It was carried out by the surviving Nazi party militia, the Storm Troopers, who were not only armed, but ready and willing to kill, and knew they would face no consequence but praise if they killed. The idea that a Jewish homeowner producing a pistol and shooting one or two of these men at his door would have ended the matter, sent them fleeing into the night like cowardly villains of a melodrama, and that if this had been multiplied a few thousand times the whole thing would have been stopped in its tracks, is ludicrous in a degree beyond the power of words to suggest. It would simply have gotten the house burnt down with the family inside, by hard men who had been in many fights before this one, acting with the assistance of the uniformed police and most of the people on the block, and had it been general, the toll of the night would have been in the thousands, rather than a hundred or so ( deaths among those taken under arrest over the next few months are a separate matter, but these, too, would certainly have been far, far, larger ).

And of course the great mass of Nazi killing of Jews involved conquered populations, places where the same armed force which saw to the executions had already broken and beaten powerful armies. To imagine that household weapons would have prevailed against what wrecked the first line of the Red Army is, to put it bluntly, delusional.

70. Well taught, well said

The Jews of Germany were in a way the lucky ones. Many knew what was coming and got out. And the "no Jew can own a gun law" was one of the last laws passed. By then, the Jews had been so ostracized and restricted, the gun law was almost an after-thought.

73. Good Links, Sir: Thank You For Putting Them Up, People Should Read Them

93. "The Jews of Germany were in a way the lucky ones" ???

Really?

That's got to be one for the books.

"It's ok that they're taking away your last means of defending your family from the neighbor who hates you... at least it gives you notice that it's time to run! Consider yourself one of the lucky ones."

105. I have a feeling that a

lack of knowledge and reasoning power will not stop these NRA apologists from displaying their hind parts in full public view. This one is particularly tenacious, and appears to delight in its display of ignorance.

91. Of course it isn't. But you should at least support your claim. No?

Your brief synopsis does a great job of supporting the strawman made elsewhere (hugabear below as an example)... but not the actual statement. It's a step in the right direction from "you're wrong and if you knew anything you would know that"... but is still unresponsive.

You've gone to some length to demonstrate that the jews would not have been able to resist the nazis successfully just by having legal access to more firearms. The fact that so many leap to that strawman is itself an indication that their position is weak at best.

The pro-2A argument isn't that the jews would have beaten the nazis in some WWII version of Red Dawn. It's merely one of many examples that abusive regimes throughout history (including the british that the founders had just thrown off) have often gone out of their way to first disarm the potential opposition. Their position is that one aspect of the purpose of 2A is that it is harder for an abusive regime to disarm the opposition. To remove from legislative authority the determination of which groups were acceptable/encouraged to be armed and which were to be disarmed - so that a change in administration cannot result in a fundamental change in who could own a firearm. The nazi analogy makes this point very well.

And keep in mind that your statement was far more broad-reaching than what you're defending here. It was that the law "had Nothing To Do With the Deaths Of German Jews". For such a statement to be true, you would have to believe that not a single additional jew would have survived had the law not been enacted... and not a single arian german who later went on to kill a jew would have been killed in such a defense. Such a claim is beyond belief. It's demonstrable that some german jews did resist and some of them (including a distant relation of mine) survived and even rescued others.

Ask yourself what Hitler's purpose was in putting that law into place. Could it be anything BUT disarming his opposition? (your synopsis actually makes this point for me). Were you an adviser would you have said "ah... there's no point in passing that. It won't make any difference" ?

95. Like the NRA and so many of its supporters,

you are using a false equivalence argument to make a bullshit NRA talking point. Hitler would have killed the German Jews whether they had guns or not. That a few more of Hitler's troops may have died in the process had the Jews not been disarmed, is more or less pointless. Hitler targeted all German Jews for annihilation because of bigotry and hatred, and not because they posed a threat to his dictatorial government. And, besides the guns, he took away almost all of their rights.

Like our homegrown neo-Nazi "militias" in the modern day USA, the German Jews had neither the numbers, nor the potential firepower to overthrow their government. The point of the OP is that Hitler relaxed the gun laws of Germany for the majority of the population, contrary to what the NRA talking points intentionally misstate.

The other part of your false equivalence argument is the assumption that our constitution is not strong enough to head off any attempts to turn our government into a tyrannical dictatorship. Not gonna happen. There are too many checks and balances built into the Constitution which would prevent that doomsday scenario. If it were possible, Dubya and his gang of thieves would have attempted to impose a dictatorship because after all, Dubya stated that a "dictatorship would be easier" to govern than a democracy didn't he?

Using weak-assed arguments which attempt to stoke fear into the minds and hearts of the American people is all that the NRA and its "survivalist" paranoid followers have left, and that is just sad. Our government is NOT advocating taking guns away from the American people, and no there is no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

There is, however, a need to regulate and control access to guns in this country, and that is perfectly legal and logical. Our government regulates many products which are considered health hazards, and guns are no different. After all, we hold the world's record for gun deaths and injuries among our developed-nation peers. It is time to relinquish that title to someone else -- and then help them reduce their own gun deaths and injuries. Lead by example. Get it?

96. "Ask yourself what Hitler's purpose was in putting that law into place."

I would imagine it had the same purpose as the laws, enacted at roughly the same time, prohibiting Jews from having sex with "Aryans," from practicing law or medicine, from congregating in public, from publishing, from teaching, from attending universities, from being veterinarians, etc. etc.

It was to ostracize and demonize and isolate.

Interestingly enough, you haven't disputed the fact that the Nazis did indeed loosen gun control laws for "Aryans"--roughly 99% of the population -- and somehow no viable internal resistance arose from those armed masses. When actual resistance did occur, it was either in the form of non-violent underground agitation (the White Rose, brutally suppressed even though its members, some of whom were in the military, had access to weapons), or an attempted military coup (whose weapon of choice was the planted time bomb).

The broader fact is that American society of the 21st century is so entirely different from the Germany of the 1930s that all NRA talking points trying to make this analogy are absurd. It's like calling President Obama a Kenyan or a socialist--simple ranting for the simple minded.

The whole notion that a populace armed with personal fire-arms could stop a government intent on tyranny is ridiculous on its face. The idea that we should arm ourselves with this specific purpose is also a denial of our democratic institutions--tantamount to saying that all power comes from the barrel of a gun--a sentiment that bears more in common with the totalitarian who coined it, as opposed to anyone who professes to be an American patriot.

101. I refer you to The Magistrate's excellent summary.

While it does not support the position we were debating, it's a good summary of the history.

Interestingly enough, you haven't disputed the fact that the Nazis did indeed loosen gun control laws for "Aryans"--roughly 99% of the population

Well... I haven't disputed that it loosened gun control laws for the people Hitler wanted armed (in fact, it's part of my argument), but I do dispute this... because it isn't true. He didn't just remove access to firearms from the Jews... but from all of his opponents (or those he feared would become opponents). Those non-jew opponents were often simply called "communists", they really consisted of a number of political groups that the Nazis wanted to eliminate. The nazis would close off entire streets and go house to house conducting "criminal" raids - seizing firearms and arresting opponents - under the propaganda that the communists were about to turn terrorist

And they made up MUCH more than 1% of the population. The notion that the nazis made up such a huge proportion of the population is simply wrong.

and somehow no viable internal resistance arose from those armed masses.

I refer you to any decent historical account. That's simply wrong (as well as irrelevant to the debate).

When actual resistance did occur, it was either in the form of non-violent underground agitation

See comment above. You're way off base. And again, since it was not just the jews who he attempted to disarm but all opponents, it's irrelevant.

104. And you support the

NRA's bullshit talking points because you actually believe that the "Hitler scenario" could transpire in the United States? You actually believe that we should arm the populace to the teeth in order to prepare for the advent of a coming tyrannical dictatorship? Do you really believe that there is ANY comparison whatsoever between Nazi Germany and the United States of America?

Your arguments have been proven to be skewed, full of half-truths, and outright misinformation. Give it a rest and take this "if Hitler got away with it, it could happen here" bullshit elsewhere.

116. To which Magistrate post

are you referring?

Interestingly enough, all of his/her posts on this thread that I've read are offered to contradict your position.

The armed German resistance to the Nazis was miniscule after the seizure of power in 1933. Certainly, as I said, there was no "viable" resistance, meaning resistance that survived any length of time, that had any impact whatsoever on the Nazi hold on power. Hitler's tyranny ended with the invasion of the Red Army from the east and the Allied army from the west. No German peasants with pitchforks or handguns or rifles had any role to play in that.

And in the occupied territories, even the Yugoslav resistance, which of all the various European resistance movements was most successful in driving the Germans from their soil, became effective only after the Italian surrender of 1943 which enabled Tito both to seize heavy arms from surrendering Italian troops, and to get supplies from British and American forces by air and from across the Adriatic.

BTW, your continued refusal to capitalize "Jew" can be seen by some as an indication of antiSemitism.

Also, if personal weapons are such an effective deterent to tyranny, how was it Hitler was able to seize them at all? Sounds to me like what you're saying is, if a government wants to seize weapons from civilians it will, and there is nothing much you can do about it. The fact that these "block by block" searches and seizures you describe happened at all, without damage to the Nazi hold on power, should tell you how absurd the whole NRA talking point is right there.

122. Sound Points, Ma'am

I would supplement in one area. Partisan resistance in the portions of the Soviet Union overrun by the Germans was appreciable, and at times a real factor. But this was far from a purely civilian matter: in many instances the nuclei of partisan bands were Red Army fragments left behind by the German advance, and there was supply of arms and cadre managed from Moscow. Beyond this, Communist Party organization provided a disciplined frame-work, unlike anything that could be found in other areas the Nazis occupied, and wholly absent in modern Western societies, ours in particular.

127. Just to let you know,

"FBaggins" in the post above cites your posts as support for his NRA friendly criticism of the Rude Pundit's take on Hitler and gun control. I've read your posts, and they seem to me to say just the opposite: that attempts to conflate Nazi gun laws and the history of Europe 1933-45 with what may or may not be suggested by President Obama in 21st century America by way of gun reform are historically illiterate and rhetorically misleading. Am I reading you correctly on that?

And I agree with your supplement about resistance in the occupied Soviet Union. In fact, all your posts on this thread have been very instructive. I always enjoy it when someone who knows what they're talking (or posting) about takes the time and effort to educate.

133. I Saw That, Ma'am : Figured It was Kindest Just To Leave It Alone....

I think he was suggesting I had facts right he thinks you mis-stated, though he does not agree with conclusions I draw from those facts, but I could be wrong in that --- hard to read what people mean when they do not think clearly.

137. Okay, thanks.

31. One sided

You don't take into consideration the other half of the '38 bill. The relaxing of gun laws to non-Jews.

You cannot argue from only one side. Relaxing gun access for the Brown Shirts and other civilians loyal to the cause while at the same time restricting access for Jews set the stage for the Holocaust. Fantasize for a moment if Hitler would have, (but why would he?), taken away ALL guns from EVERYONE other than the military and police, more Jews would have had at least a better chance to escape at least.

But your premise of an argument is kind of lost because the Hitler government was hell bent on its evil agenda regardless. Using Hitler's government as an argument for either side is kind of useless.

92. Not really.

Both sides make the pro-2A point.... which is simply that our founders wanted to avoid such a situation where a new governing power determined both who should be armed (their supporters) and who should be disarmed (the people they intended to kill)

Fantasize for a moment if Hitler would have, (but why would he?), taken away ALL guns from EVERYONE other than the military and police, more Jews would have had at least a better chance to escape at least.

Which is exactly why the argument isn't one-sided.

But your premise of an argument is kind of lost because the Hitler government was hell bent on its evil agenda regardless.

Forget just the 2A argument. Inferior (including entirely unarmed) populations have resisted oppression for centuries. Is it really a valid argument to say "they would have lost anyway"? Have we not had regimes overthrown in recent decades even though they had tanks/bombers/etc?

94. I'll tell ya what ... if the government ever acts to confiscate guns ...

For a SPECIFIC race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, or whatever ... I'm going to be right there alongside these 'nuts' protesting it. Actually, it'll probably be without them, cause I could easily see 'em going along with it, as long as it's some group THEY don't like (Muslims, for example). But until that happens, this is all a bunch of overblown nonsense. It's not LOGICAL to conclude that the government is taking action here for any reason aside from a legitimate concern for public safety.

97. You're missing the difference between laws and constitutional protections.

No doubt that reasonable people would oppose such an attempt to pass that kind of law. But that isn't the point.

The reason it's in the Constitution and not just an early law passed by the founders is that they didn't want the government to have the ability to pass such a law (without amending the Constitution)

It's not LOGICAL to conclude that the government is taking action here for any reason aside from a legitimate concern for public safety.

Well... sure it is. For the same reason that pro-choice defenders justifiably fear the slippery slope in legislation that they would otherwise have little problem with (surely parental notification laws are otherwise unobjectinable, no?)... but I agree with you. Public safety is clearly the primary concern here... but the principal under attack is whether or not government has the power to pass such laws - not whether or not the individual law is worthy of consideration.

There could be plenty of reasonable laws that restrict free speech. Laws that could be reasonable (and have pure motivations), but which are nevertheless unconstitutional. And we should be ready to defend the constitution and oppose such laws - no matter how reasonable they seem.

41. The PAVN were in all respects a modern mechanized army

They should not be confused with the NLF military units in the south, though they were a far better "militia" than anything the gun nuts could throw together (but for cultural and historical reasons).

But yes, they were killed by the tens of thousands. The fantasies of the gun nuts is akin to those of little children who think they can throw themselves clear of a crashing train and land on their feet. The idea that a few armed Jewish communities could have stemmed the Holocaust is as asinine as every gun nut's demented fantasy that he (usually) would heroically stop a mass shooting - an idea usually concocted from the comfort of one's couch, or at best, based on one's expertise at shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. The Wehrmacht spent the better part of 1941 running roughshod over fully constituted Soviet armies. But the Einsatzgruppe were going to be slowed by some civilians with rifles? It's as stupid an idea as anyone has ever uttered, but for the gun nuts, it's practically an article of faith. Never mind that nearly every uprising in the occupied territories was viciously put down, including every armed ghetto uprising during the entire war, even late in the war when the Germans were not particularly keen on dealing with that sort of thing. It's incredible that anyone can believe the gun nut nonsense.

27. Hitler did restrict who could own a gun

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen).

I was just doing some research on the subject as I am a World War II nut. I watch everything on the history channel about Hitler also. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

34. Here's some of the "Nazi shit that shows up at gun shows:"

And while some of the spectacle might shock the liberal leaning (Nazi memorabilia, Confederate flags and tons of mean-looking guns), by and large, the show was good all-American fun -- a chance for gun enthusiasts to get together, chat, shop and swap.

It's interesting to note how many people interested in Confederate memorabilia are also hot on the Nazi stuff.

49. The Aryan Nations

motto: "That for which we fight is to safeguard the existence of our race, the purity of our blood and the sustenance of our children." Sounds a lot like a typical Hitler speech doesn't it?

These self-proclaimed swastika wearing Nazi-wannabes, along with their KKK brethren, and other so-called para-military "militias" are the scum of this nation, do not deserve to own weapons of ANY kind, anymore than Charles Manson or Jared Loughner.

44. They're just collectors!!!

71. However, interest in Confederate and Nazi memorabilia in itself

is not necessarily indicative of support for the policies or beliefs of those movements. For example, I have a few German coins with swastikas on them, but I have them because I am a student of history. I steer clear of neo-Nazis, and anything that supports their agenda.

147. The first Nazi coin I ever owned,

I purchased from a man who had actually fought against the Nazis in the European theater. He was probably the first person who explained to me just how horrible the Nazis were. Every time I looked at that coin, I always thought how awful it must have been to have been in Germany, and occupied countries, during that time.

148. I Understand, Sir

But you can readily see the disease in operation if you look into the advertisement pages of magazines on military history. It is not a healthy market, and people buying reproductions and such are far from touching the grim reality of the past, in the way you speak movingly of.

I am working on a model now, that I started from seeing a photograph of an aeroplane with its pilot beside it, and it was in a scheme I wanted to paint. In researching the thing, I have discovered the pilot was a kid of just eighteen, and that the photograph was taken only a week before he was killed in action. It has changed the feel of the project somewhat.

80. vexillology is a perfectly valid activity...

The south and Nazis had an incredible diversity of symbols, banners, standards, flags etc.

I had a passing interest in just naval flags a while ago and was stunned by the variety of them the south had turned out. A few were quite similar to the north's. What people think of as the "confederate flag" was actually the flag of the Army of northern Virgina, other southern states sent units into battle with radically different designs.

What percentage of people interested in this stuff are pro or amateur vexillologists is a matter for discussion, but its a field of study that has been going on for thousands of years.

102. Reminds me of a scene from "Shoot Em Up"

45. Jews -- Gun Control -- and the Nazis

As much as you'd like to believe there is no connection between the genocide of Jews and gun control, the fact is the Nazis disarmed Jews prior to the Holocaust in Germany and in every country they occupied. In November of 1938 -- the day after the infamous Kristalnacht -- the Nazis passed specific prohibitions forbidding Jews owning firearms or ammunition in Germany and Nazi-controlled countries. I quote here from the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 1938 -- where, in the very first paragraph, the prohibition of Jewish gun possession is addressed.

"Paragraph 1 -- Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

Paragraph 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation".

So, clearly, the Nazis believed that their planned persecution and execution of Jews would be easier with a disarmed Jewish populace than with an armed one. Even when you consider that less that 5% of the entire Jewish population of Germany had firearms, the Nazis still felt it was necessary to disarm that tiny percentage.

But ... don't believe me ... take the words of the man himself

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." -- Adolph Hitler April 11, 1942 (Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426)

Now, before you go off on a tangent, no one has said that Gun Control CAUSED the Holocaust or that lack of Gun Control would have prevented the Holocaust. No one is saying that Gun Control advocates are Nazis, Nazi sympathizers or anything in that vein. However, it cannot be denied that Gun Control WAS however a mitigating factor in the Holocaust -- that is is historical fact. In the dozen or so major Jewish uprisings against insurmountable Nazi forces -- even with pitifully inadequate illegal weapons -- the Jews were able to prevent or delay transportation to death camps and even mount mass escapes such as Sobibor. These delays and escapes saved lives -- maybe only a few lives -- but lives none the less.

So, your major assertions -- Nazis did not disarm Jews and armed Jews would not have fared any better than unarmed Jews in the Holocaust are demonstrably wrong.

59. That's just wrong.

(2) contradictory on the claim that gun control was a significant factor that was significant enough to be "mitigating"

no one has said that Gun Control CAUSED the Holocaust or that lack of Gun Control would have prevented the Holocaust.

However, it cannot be denied that Gun Control WAS however a mitigating factor in the Holocaust -- that is is historical fact.

and

(3) made with full understanding of the political implications of the argument that you are making in its widely understood extreme fringe right-wing political context (and I have seen it made numerous times by non-Jewish right-wing gun trolls in the Gungeon).

Congratulations, you're perfectly willing to let right-wingers use Jewish history as a pawn in their political game because it meets your narrow, fetishistic ends.

64. Bahaha

66. I Suspect He Meant 'Aggravating Factor', Sir

But caught up in the euphoria of commenting without the slightest reference to historical context, he lost track of what he was trying to say; saying 'gun control was a mitigating factor in the Holocaust' means gun control lessened the harm done in the episode, whereas what he obviously meant to say is that 'gun control made the Holocaust worse', which as a statement of fact is nonesense, but at least as a straight expression of his thought, in English, works.

67. That's probably the case (pre-emptive Oy Vey)

As someone who has done at least some academic study in history, it's just maddening when you see the Queen of the Social Sciences so abused. No self-respecting historian would make any sort of argument like this because in asking the "what if" it in no ways considers the "why not" and becomes completely disconnected from the actual source material. Resistance in general, and especially Jewish resistance, was met with overwhelming and brutal military force consistently throughout the rise and fall of Hitler. For example, the above post completely ignores the fact that one event that precipitated the Kristallnacht was the assassination of the German Ambassador to France by a Polish Jew. Thus the entire historical argument that "these delays and escapes saved lives -- maybe only a few lives -- but lives none the less" falls completely flat. The Nazis were completely fucking insane and nothing short of the deaths of tens of millions stopped them in their rampage.

84. "No one is saying that Gun Control advocates are Nazis, Nazi sympathizers or anything in that vein."

Yes, they are. In spite of the fact that actual Nazis are more likely to pop up at a gun show than any lefty-leaning gathering like OWS. Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking, since THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE OP! The whole "Obama is worse that Hitler" meme is based on it.

103. True, Sir, Especially With The 'Hitler Was a Leftist' Line So Popular With 'Team NRA' Types....

86. holdencaufield, that wasn't RP's point.

RP did bring up a tangential point that guns in the hands of civilians can't win a war, and did not address the fact that they might save a few lives in isolated incidents.

But, the main point is that Hitler relaxed gun control laws. Once Jews became his target, of course he then denied them guns. But how come nobody is complaining there are stricter gun control laws in predominantly African american areas! It's obfuscating the point.

The point is that Hitler relaxed gun laws for his people -- he was an evil psychotic gun lover. No different than the mass gunmen we have been seeing lately, only he had power.

65. But you certainly can't bother the gun nuts or LaPierrs with facts!

68. As a pro-gun liberal

I agree with the OP. The Weimar Republic instituted broad gun control laws well before the Nazi's were a goose-stepping dream for Hitler. In 1938 he relaxed the laws for most except Jews, likely because he could count on the most likely people to arm-up, to be brown shirts anyway.

What happened in Germany doesn't excuse or explain why gun control measures have failed from time to time, and doesn't explain what did happen in Germany at all. I can point to some gun control measures in the US that have been a resounding success. For instance, the NFA registry has worked shockingly well. You don't need a whole hand to count the number of crimes committed with lawfully owned fully automatic weapons in the last 50 years. And when those guns get transferred to unlawful recipients, they can be tracked to the source, and someone has some 'splainin to do. In front of a jury.

I started a thread in the gungeon in DU2, long, long ago, advocating for registration modeled on the NFA registry. I bet you a dollar it'll happen in my lifetime. It's due. We can put a man on the fucking moon, we can come up with a registration scheme that helps prevent people from getting guns when their mental health, competence, or criminal background suggests contrariwise.

81. It is certain the treaty disarmed Germany

It is laid out in Chapter 2 in the first section of Part V the full extent to which Germany was required to diminish its military and full armaments capabilities. You might want to find another source, like the Wikisource copy of Part V, because it includes the tables of data missing from the Yale copy which elaborate on the extent to which all armaments in Germany had to be reduced.

77. Rec

You know, I sometimes wish that the gun nuts' delusions were reality, that the government REALLY WOULD go after their guns, sending massively-armed FBI and ATF squads to confiscate these fools' substitutions for actual penises. The opportunity for herd-thinning and increasing the nation's collective IQ would be worth it!

82. The Nazis did stage a coup

The one thing missing from this brilliant take-down of the absurd Right-wing talking point is the Beer Hall Putsch. During the 8th and 9th of November 1923 Hitler had tried to stage a coup from the beer halls of Munich. Fortunately, and despite the German armed forces being diminished by the Treaty of Versailles, they still had enough firepower to put down the coup and arrest Hitler. From that it is rather easy to imagine that if armaments were not severely restricted in Germany in the 1920s, Hitler and the Nazis may have stood a better chance of succeeding in their coup and manage to seize power. So there may in fact be reason to believe the prohibition on guns forestalled the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, and made it more difficult for them to rise to power.

149. What's MIRT?

This thread has gotten complicated.

A couple points come to mind. They may have been made and I missed them. If so, apologies to the ones who got there first.

The Nazi laws forbidding Jews from owning guns were among the last ant-Jewish laws the Nazis passed. By then, the Jews were so restricted that that was just the next step. If the False Analogizers were right, then prohibiting Jews from owning guns would have been the first anti-Semitic law the Nazis passed.

The 2nd Amendment was intended for state militias, as the wording of the Constitution indicates. (Someone posted the link to The Young Turks clip where Cenk gives a quick overview.) The NRA's own history was not paranoic gun ownership until I think the 70s. Someone will now quote Madison and others about self-defense. Please be aware that self-defense and a "right" to gun ownership - any and all gun ownership are neither legally, logically or constitutionally equivalent. What has happened is two very separate issues have been conflated for the profit of two industries - gun manufacturers and right-wing hysteria promoters.